Chess will never be solved, here's why - Chess Forums - Page 519

playerafar

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10361

Elroch wrote:

playerafar wrote:

Elroch wrote:

If a signs of intelligence were:

boasting about how like a really smart guy you are
discussing subjects without ever learning about them or even looking up the definitions of terms used
spending all your time trying to find ways to boost your ego and deal with perceived threats to your ego

you'd be intelligent.

They aren't.

Correct.
O is obviously trolling. He is not 'intelligent'.

He is entirely honest about thinking he is a genius.

I'm not so sure.
O's priority is to post things he imagines will be annoying especially because they're false.
But in his insecurity he doesn't seem to get it that others are not fragile and delicate - unlike him - so ironically and pathetically its he who gets annoyed.

punchdrunkpatzer

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10362

Elroch wrote:

Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

if u put 99 bl balls and 1 wh ball in a rabbits hat ?...the chance of pulling the wh ball out in the first 50 tries is ~69%...maybe.

Well the chance is exactly 50% if you don't replace the balls (you have divided the balls into two equal halves...)

And if you do replace the balls, the chance of not ever getting the white ball is (99/100)^50 = 0.605, so the chance of getting it is 0.395.

This is incorrect. Using the standard equation for Bernoulli trials with n=100, k=50, and the probability of initial success being .01, the probability of success in 50 trials is 30.556%.

MEGACHE3SE

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10363

playerafar wrote:

O's priority is to post things he imagines will be annoying especially because they're false.
But in his insecurity he doesn't seem to get it that others are not fragile and delicate - unlike him - so ironically and pathetically its he who gets annoyed.

tbf i actually am extremely emotionally fragile when it comes to people posting objectively false things. optimissed used to just be intentionally vague (fallaciously) but now hes just posting stuff that takes 5 seconds of research, from even a flat earther, could determine that what he's saying is objectively wrong.

BigChessplayer665

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10364

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

playerafar wrote:

O's priority is to post things he imagines will be annoying especially because they're false.
But in his insecurity he doesn't seem to get it that others are not fragile and delicate - unlike him - so ironically and pathetically its he who gets annoyed.

tbf i actually am extremely emotionally fragile when it comes to people posting objectively false things. optimissed used to just be intentionally vague (fallaciously) but now hes just posting stuff that takes 5 seconds of research, from even a flat earther, could determine that what he's saying is objectively wrong.

I kinda am to I always get into hotheaded debates about it then people either curse at me or call me dumb lol and try to flex how they are better than me...

MEGACHE3SE

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10365

punchdrunkpatzer wrote:

Elroch wrote:

And if you do replace the balls, the chance of not ever getting the white ball is (99/100)^50 = 0.605, so the chance of getting it is 0.395.

This is incorrect. Using the standard equation for Bernoulli trials with n=100, k=50, and the probability of initial success being .01, the probability of success in 50 trials is 30.556%.

u sure there isnt just a calculation rounding error? or are you doing the calculation with a more precise calculator than google?

also isnt using a bernoulli trial just an inefficient way of calculation? calculating from the probability of not getting a success with replacement is just 1 - (99/100)^50.

punchdrunkpatzer

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10366

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

punchdrunkpatzer wrote:

Elroch wrote:

And if you do replace the balls, the chance of not ever getting the white ball is (99/100)^50 = 0.605, so the chance of getting it is 0.395.

This is incorrect. Using the standard equation for Bernoulli trials with n=100, k=50, and the probability of initial success being .01, the probability of success in 50 trials is 30.556%.

u sure there isnt just a calculation rounding error? or are you doing the calculation with a more precise calculator than google?

also isnt using a bernoulli trial just an inefficient way of calculation? calculating from the probability of not getting a success with replacement is just 1 - (99/100)^50.

No. This is because every successive trial removes a ball from the hat. That is to say, your probability of success on the first attempt is 1/100, on the second 1/99, etc. Your calculation assumes the black ball is replaced into the pool every attempt, which i dont believe the op of the problem suggested.

playerafar

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10367

Elroch wrote:

playerafar wrote:

Regarding 'tablebasing' - would it always be necessary to use 'tablebase referral' for the computer to declare a position a win for one side?

Example: White has all eight of his pawns but they're all on their home squares.
There's nothing else on the board but the two Kings.
That's ten pieces. Tablebases only go up to 7 pieces.
Yes its a ridiculous position but its possible because of knight action.
White to move.
Can't the computer just rule it a win with no further ado?
I would say Yes.

It can't. How would it? It's worth pointing out that there are ways a human can think that are not accessible to any chess computer of which I am aware. To explain what I mean, we humans can think "Just leave the a,b,c and d pawns where they are and we can win with the others as if they didn't exist (just requires keeping the black king away from the bottom left of the board). Thus the 6 piece tablebase is enough.

Or alternatively, push 4 of the pawns mindlessly and avoid stalemating black so as to force either checkmate or get black to capture the pawns or queens. That gets us to a winning 6 piece tablebase position. LOL.

And although there are zillions of such 'rulable' positions -
here's the bad news:
They don't take big enough Chunks out of the big number.
10^44. The number of possible chess positions.

Interesting notion - in this sort of combinatorics, "typical" classes tend to account for the large majority. i.e. those with a typical number of pieces on the board and a roughly even distribution of piece types. For example, the majority of all legal chess positions have 27 or 28 pieces on the board - this is where the peak of number of positions for a fixed number of pieces is, and most of the positions are very close to this peak (despite the fact that the positions can have 2, 3, ... 32 pieces on the board).

-------------------------------
tygxc would like to 'shortcut' by doing ridiculous things like 'taking the square root'.
There's no 'panacea' solution.
But algorithms probably have been written to knock out many obviously won positions that have both 8 pieces and more than 8 pieces and to also knock out many positions that are illegal or not legally reachable.
Again with 8 pieces or more than 8.
-----------------------------------------
Its probably much harder for the computers to find and declare positions and say 'draw can be forced here' ...
unless you're going to allow 'mistakes'.
Including - for the winning side to force the draw.
Which in real games we sometimes see when the winning side is in bad time trouble.

@Elroch
This from your quoted post above which includes a quote of my post too:
(prediction: O might try to jump in but very likely to contribute Nothing)
-----------------------------------
"Can't the computer just rule it a win with no further ado?
I would say Yes.
It can't. How would it? It's worth pointing out that there are ways a human can think that are not accessible to any chess computer of which I am aware ..."
---------------------------------------
@Elroch I already explained that the computer can assign a win in the position I gave because black has no path to forcing a draw.
The computer doesn't have to 'think' its a win - it can be programmed to do so.
The position I gave is in contrast to e4 e5 Ba6 Nxa6 where perhaps black has a 'path' to a draw or even a win.
I agree with you about Ba6 Elroch but not about White on move with 8 pawns on their original squares and nothing else on board except the Kings.
White wins. The computer can assign a win because black has no play for a draw.
@Elroch this will be one of the things we will have 'friendly disagreement' about I believe.
I say - 'burden of proof' would shift in that case.
---------------------------------------
By the way - the computer could also instantly rule all positions with the black King on white's back rank there as illegal because there's no legal way for black's King to have gotten there.
And also - all positions are illegal with Black's King on white's third rank there with either side to move. And all positions are illegal with the white King anywhere but its back rank.
Because again there's no legal way for black's King to have gotten to that third rank.
Martin pointed out that idea to me. Regarding pawns on their home squares.
---------------------------------
The computer can't 'think'?
It doesn't 'think' anyway. Its programmed. By humans.
Yes you could argue back that its programmed with mathematical rules and finding various positions to be 'wins' without going through all the 'game tree' possibilities is invalid.
I say - no it isn't. Its a completely valid shortcut.
And very very different from the kinds of shortcut that tygxc constantly Looks For - which are all Invalid.
---------------
We'll disagree @Elroch.
Even while being on the same side of the issue generally.
And with no animosity I'm thinking.
(Note: Elroch might be thinking: 'that American doesn't know ...' but its O who would be much more likely to be xenophobic along with all his other narrownesses and phobias)
@Elroch our disagreement might just come down to semantics disagreements as to what 'valid shortcuts'means or should mean.

MARattigan

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10368

@punchdrunkpatzer

"if you do replace the balls,..." @Elroch

Don't know exactly what process you have in mind. You wouldn't replace the black ball because you stop when you find it.

punchdrunkpatzer

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10369

MARattigan wrote:

"if you do replace the balls,..." @Elroch

"which i dont believe the op of the problem suggested." me

playerafar

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10370

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

playerafar wrote:

O's priority is to post things he imagines will be annoying especially because they're false.
But in his insecurity he doesn't seem to get it that others are not fragile and delicate - unlike him - so ironically and pathetically its he who gets annoyed.

tbf i actually am extremely emotionally fragile when it comes to people posting objectively false things. optimissed used to just be intentionally vague (fallaciously) but now hes just posting stuff that takes 5 seconds of research, from even a flat earther, could determine that what he's saying is objectively wrong.

BC and MEGA - you have options as to whether to be 'fragile' or not.
You might not be aware of those options.
So therefore you might not be aware of a 'choice'.
You'll think 'I am such and such ...' not realizing that that's partly happening because you choose to say/think so.
In your young age group (whatever it is) you'll have and do have much more 'facility of options' than O does in his age group. Although unlike O - many seniors know how to Develop and Improve and Use their range of options instead of being rigidly 'Set' like O.
But apparently O's situation has been hopeless for a very long time.
Maybe now you'll again want to be 'defense lawyer' for him BC ...
in which case this post to you won't work at your end - but still 'works' though.
----------------------------------------------
but you may discover that a person's 'ability to be annoying' depends on who they're trying to annoy.
Some might confuse 'fragility to be annoyed' with 'intellectual acuity'.
Mistakenly thinking they're equivalent.
They're not.
Foolish sensitivity is just that. Foolishness.
To be immune from it - by choice - is not obtuseness.
Its emotional Empowerment to choose ... including to make the emotional choices intellectually.
I quoted MEGA's post - but had actually meant to quote BC's response to MEGA and respond to both of them ...
but its OK.
Because the ideas are the same.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10371

pdp ?...meggy was wrong on this one before. so dont expect them to gettit right now. maths not meggys strong suit a/w. and elrock drives math around w/min liability ins. so take that in...

playerafar

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10372

punchdrunkpatzer wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

"if you do replace the balls,..." @Elroch

"which i dont believe the op of the problem suggested." me

Elroch already covered earlier both scenarios of both replacing the balls and not replacing them.

punchdrunkpatzer

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10373

playerafar wrote:

punchdrunkpatzer wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

"if you do replace the balls,..." @Elroch

"which i dont believe the op of the problem suggested." me

Elroch already covered earlier both scenarios of both replacing the balls and not replacing them.

And he was wrong about not replacing them.

playerafar

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10374

Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

pdp ?...meggy was wrong on this one before. so dont expect them to gettit right now. maths not meggys strong suit a/w. and elrock drives math around w/min liability ins. so take that in...

Actually math is very much a 'strong suit' of both Elroch and MEGA.
TGL 'trying to be annoying'?
Lol.
You'll have to try Harder. Lass.
But you'll 'Kiss O better'. That you'll succeed in.

punchdrunkpatzer

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10375

Ah nvm. I was wrong

jeffskeeeee

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10376

🫵😢🫵

🤜😢🤛

Elroch

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10377

MARattigan wrote:

@punchdrunkpatzer

"if you do replace the balls,..." @Elroch

Don't know exactly what process you have in mind. You wouldn't replace the black ball because you stop when you find it.

Technically true, but you could replace the white balls. Both possibilities are common in such problems.

The calculation for that question is also a tad simpler if you don't assume you don't stop (it's slightly more complicated if you do).

playerafar

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10378

punchdrunkpatzer wrote:

playerafar wrote:

punchdrunkpatzer wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

"if you do replace the balls,..." @Elroch

"which i dont believe the op of the problem suggested." me

Elroch already covered earlier both scenarios of both replacing the balls and not replacing them.

And he was wrong about not replacing them.

Well let's see if Elroch concedes wrongness there or argues for rightfulness or whatever.
I'm confident that if Elroch thought he was wrong he'd probably concede gracefully whereas O in his obtuseness could not do so.
Elroch is usually right though.
He doesn't make false postulations for the sake of being false.
That's O - not Elroch.

playerafar

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10379

punchdrunkpatzer wrote:

Ah nvm. I was wrong

Well there you go.
You just did something with little effort that O can almost never do.

Elroch

Jul 10, 2024

0

#10380

punchdrunkpatzer wrote:

playerafar wrote:

punchdrunkpatzer wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

"if you do replace the balls,..." @Elroch

"which i dont believe the op of the problem suggested." me

Elroch already covered earlier both scenarios of both replacing the balls and not replacing them.

And he was wrong about not replacing them.

Do explain. I don't recall being wrong. I do recall considering two alternative questions (I was looking for a question to fit Ghostess' answer, but I didn't end up with one - I am pretty sure there is another well-known problem she was thinking of).